Alam v. State of New York
Docket 2023-06403
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02618
- Docket
- 2023-06403
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims granting the State's CPLR 3211(a)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Court of Claims' dismissal of Mansoor Alam's claim against the State of New York. Alam had sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for intentional infliction of emotional distress after New York City Department of Social Services accepted his Medicaid application but required a monthly spenddown, which he said left him unable to cover living expenses. The court held the claim necessarily required review of an administrative agency determination and therefore fell outside the Court of Claims' subject-matter jurisdiction; such challenges must be pursued in Supreme Court by an Article 78 proceeding.
Issues Decided
- Whether a claim that challenges the NYC Department of Social Services' Medicaid spenddown determination falls within the Court of Claims' subject-matter jurisdiction
- Whether a claim that effectively seeks review of an administrative agency decision can proceed in the Court of Claims rather than by an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court
Court's Reasoning
The court applied established precedent that any claim requiring review of an administrative agency's final determination is not within the Court of Claims' jurisdiction. Because resolution of Alam's allegations depended on reviewing NYC DSS's spenddown determination, the claim could not proceed in the Court of Claims and instead must be brought as an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court. This jurisdictional rule compelled dismissal regardless of the federal and tort theories asserted.
Authorities Cited
- Pratow Corp. v State of New York148 A.D.3d 1065
- Polanco v State of New York130 A.D.3d 1494
- Davis v State of New York129 A.D.3d 1353
Parties
- Appellant
- Mansoor Alam
- Respondent
- State of New York
- Judge
- Javier E. Vargas
- Judge
- Lara J. Genovesi
- Judge
- Linda Christopher
- Judge
- Lillian Wan
- Judge
- Donna-Marie E. Golia
Key Dates
- NYC DSS notice date
- 2021-12-22
- Claim commenced
- 2022-09-01
- Court of Claims order
- 2023-03-27
- Appellate Division decision
- 2026-04-29
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider filing an Article 78 petition
If Alam wants judicial review of the NYC DSS spenddown determination, he should file an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court challenging that administrative decision.
- 2
Consult an attorney experienced in administrative law
An attorney can advise on the timing, procedural requirements, and evidence needed for an Article 78 challenge and any potential remedies.
- 3
Preserve administrative record and deadlines
Collect and preserve all notices, applications, and communications with NYC DSS and act promptly to meet any statute of limitations or filing deadlines for an Article 78 action.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The Appellate Division upheld the dismissal of Alam's lawsuit because it required reviewing an administrative decision by NYC DSS, which the Court of Claims cannot do.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Alam is affected because his claim was dismissed; more broadly, individuals challenging agency determinations in New York must use the appropriate procedure (Article 78) rather than the Court of Claims.
- What happens next for the claimant?
- The claimant must seek review of the NYC DSS determination in Supreme Court by filing an Article 78 proceeding if he wishes to challenge the spenddown requirement.
- Did the court decide the merits of the constitutional and tort claims?
- No. The court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and did not reach the merits of the federal or tort claims.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Alam v State of New York - 2026 NY Slip Op 02618 Alam v State of New York 2026 NY Slip Op 02618 April 29, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Mansoor Alam, appellant, v State of New York, respondent. (Claim No. 138218) Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 29, 2026 2023-06403 Lara J. Genovesi, J.P. Linda Christopher Lillian Wan Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ. Mansoor Alam, Jamaica, NY, appellant pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Matthew W. Grieco and Kartik Naram of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of 42 USC § 1983 and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Javier E. Vargas, J.), dated March 27, 2023. The order granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. In or around November 2021, the claimant filed an application with the New York City Department of Social Services (hereinafter NYC DSS) for Medicaid to pay for medical bills. By notice dated December 22, 2021, NYC DSS accepted the claimant's application to pay for medical bills only in excess of his monthly spenddown amount as indicated. In September 2022, the claimant commenced this claim against the defendant, inter alia, to recover damages for the deprivation of his rights under the United States Constitution and various federal laws in violation of 42 USC § 1983 and for intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging that the decision by NYC DSS to accept his application to pay for medical bills only in excess of his monthly spenddown amount left him without enough money to pay for his necessary living expenses. The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The claimant opposed the motion. In an order dated March 27, 2023, the Court of Claims granted the defendant's motion. The claimant appeals. "Regardless of how a claim is characterized, one that requires, as a threshold matter, the review of an administrative agency's determination falls outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Claims" ( Pratow Corp. v State of New York , 148 AD3d 1065, 1065-1066 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Polanco v State of New York , 130 AD3d 1494, 1495; Davis v State of New York , 129 AD3d 1353, 1353-1354). A challenge to the final action of an administrative agency is reviewable in the Supreme Court via a CPLR article 78 proceeding ( see Pratow Corp. v State of New York , 148 AD3d at 1066; Davis v State of New York , 129 AD3d at 1354). Here, the adjudication of the claim requires review of NYC DSS's administrative determination of the spenddown requirement applicable to the claimant's accepted Medicaid application to pay for medical bills. As such, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ( see Pratow Corp. v State of New York , 148 AD3d at 1066; see also Polanco v State of New York , 130 AD3d at 1495; Davis v State of New York , 129 AD3d at 1354). In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions, which relate to alternative grounds for affirmance. GENOVESI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and GOLIA, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph